A German district court ruled on Friday that Samsung cannot sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because it infringes on the design of Apple's iPad 2.

The ruling from a court in Dusseldorf upholds a previous, temporary decision to bar sales of Samsung's 10-inch tablet, which competes with the iPad 2. In Friday's decision, the court said outright that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks too much like Apple's iPad 2, according to Bloomberg.

"The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible," Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffman said in the verdict. "For the informed customer there remains the predominant overall impression that the device looks" like the design Apple has officially filed for ownership of in Europe.

The court apparently did not compare the Galaxy Tab 10.1 with an actual iPad, but instead focused on a design that Apple filed with the European Union. The court found that Samsung's tablet didn't differentiate itself enough from the iPad 2.

"The crucial issue was whether the Galaxy Tablet looked like the drawings registered as a design right," Brueckner-Hoffman said. "Also, our case had nothing to do with trademarks or patents for technology."

The ban applies across the European Union to Samsung's German sales unit. That means that the German wing of Samsung cannot sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in its home country or anywhere else across the EU, though the court cannot stop Samsung from selling the device through other avenues in other EU countries.

Samsung, unsurprisingly, has vowed to appeal the court's decision, according to IDG News. A company spokesman said the decision "severely limits consumer choice in Germany."

"By imposing an injunction based on this very generic design right, this ruling restricts design innovation and progress in the industry," they said. In addition, the company has vowed to continue its own patent infringement suits against Apple across the world.

In the latest expansion of the legal battle between Apple and Samsung, Apple sued the South Korean electronics maker in Japan last month, asking the government to bar the sales of its Galaxy S and Galaxy S II smartphones, as well as the Galaxy Tab 7 touchscreen tablet. The first hearing in the case was held on Wednesday, and Apple seeks damages of $1.3 million.

Friday's victory is the latest in a series of legal victories for Apple. Earlier this week, the Galaxy Tab 7.7 was pulled from a German trade show floor after a court injunction forced Samsung to cease promoting its newly unveiled tablet. And in late August, a Netherlands judge blocked sales of Samsung's Galaxy smartphones in Europe, while the company has also been forced to delay the launch of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia after a court there barred its sale.

Apple's legal assault against Samsung began in April, when it accused Samsung of copying the look and feel of its highly successful iPad and iPhone devices. Samsung has returned fire as well, accusing Apple of violating several patents it owns related to power consumption and 3G data transmission with mobile devices. Lawsuits have been filed by each company around the globe.

It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.

If Apple lost it would have been foolish, but the fact that they won only helps the consumer in that it'll help spur wholly original innovation. Despite the fact that I think a 7" is a stupid size I admire Amazon for talking a stand and doing their own thing. That takes balls. Amazon aren't simply 'copying' Apple. They are saying we can contribute something here. And the potential bonus for us because they chose to produce a $249 device that may sell quite well means that the iPad 3 may come out at $399, or at least Apple could keep around the iPad 2 at $379 - $399.

I never thought for once I want the iPhone to win. I always thought there was room for Apple, Google and Microsoft. But for whatever reason I can't quite put my finger on I actually do want the iPad to win. I guess it's really that Apple genuinely created a new category of device and the deserve to win as recognition for their great visionary work. Perhaps it's also that I don't like google though, and perhaps it's that as an iPad owner if they win we get the best Apps on an ongoing basis.

Cleo McDowell: Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Cleo McDowell: Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.

Quote "Samsung, unsurprisingly, has vowed to appeal the court's decision, according to IDG News. A company spokesman said the decision "severely limits consumer choice in Germany."

"By imposing an injunction based on this very generic design right, this ruling restricts design innovation and progress in the industry," they said. In addition, the company has vowed to continue its own patent infringement suits against Apple across the world.

They don't get it. If they do like other tablet makers (regardless if they fail at it.) design their on look and feel, then the consumer would have a choice. This is not a generic design, R&D went into developing this form factor. No one is restricting design innovation they just want you to turn off the copiers and actually do your own R&D not piggy back off of some other company success.

Personally, I think Apple would be smarter to take a Microsoft approach by forcing a license out of companies like Samsung. Instead, I think it is trying to shut them down. The benefits of the license are 1) money on every device sold, which in turn makes Android less desirable, and 2) it would allow Apple to resolve outstanding patent issues in its favor.

If Apple lost it would have been foolish, but the fact that they won only helps the consumer in that it'll help spur wholly original innovation. Despite the fact that I think a 7" is a stupid size I admire Amazon for talking a stand and doing their own thing. That takes balls. Amazon aren't simply 'copying' Apple. They are saying we can contribute something here. And the potential bonus for us because they chose to produce a $249 device that may sell quite well means that the iPad 3 may come out at $399, or at least Apple could keep around the iPad 2 at $379 - $399.

I never thought for once I want the iPhone to win. I always thought there was room for Apple, Google and Microsoft. But for whatever reason I can't quite put my finger on I actually do want the iPad to win. I guess it's really that Apple genuinely created a new category of device and the deserve to win as recognition for their great visionary work. Perhaps it's also that I don't like google though, and perhaps it's that as an iPad owner if they win we get the best Apps on an ongoing basis.

Samsung made a 7 inch tablet last year. They made a 7.7 inch tablet this year and had to pull it from the german show because of this pending injunction. Clearly the size of the device has no bearing on if apple will decide to go after it or not.

It will be interesting to see if this injunction also applies to the 7.7 as well, though something tells me it will.

Considering I saw the original 10 inch Samsung Tablet at CTIA last year, and considering the time it took them to redesign it after their CEO saw the iPad 2 (they had a mock up in a glass box at their booth but it wasn't a working copy), there is no way on earth they just didn't copy the industrial design of the iPad 2. Their original was a dog, and they didn't have the time to market to do any design work. I think Apple caught the world by surprise and they are still catching up with the design of the device.

Honestly Samsung has a history of borrowing ideas from other companies such as LG and others over the years. I think it is a strategic plan to take the best from around the industry and incorporate in their products, its just this time, they got held to task over it.

If Apple lost it would have been foolish, but the fact that they won only helps the consumer in that it'll help spur wholly original innovation. Despite the fact that I think a 7" is a stupid size I admire Amazon for talking a stand and doing their own thing. That takes balls. Amazon aren't simply 'copying' Apple. They are saying we can contribute something here. And the potential bonus for us because they chose to produce a $249 device that may sell quite well means that the iPad 3 may come out at $399, or at least Apple could keep around the iPad 2 at $379 - $399.

I never thought for once I want the iPhone to win. I always thought there was room for Apple, Google and Microsoft. But for whatever reason I can't quite put my finger on I actually do want the iPad to win. I guess it's really that Apple genuinely created a new category of device and the deserve to win as recognition for their great visionary work. Perhaps it's also that I don't like google though, and perhaps it's that as an iPad owner if they win we get the best Apps on an ongoing basis.

Dude, i was anti-apple for a LOOONNNNGGG time...until i got the iPhone. Fact is, they produce high quality products and until other companies stand on there feet and do the same, we'll be seeing more apple litigation.

Quote "Samsung, unsurprisingly, has vowed to appeal the court's decision, according to IDG News. A company spokesman said the decision "severely limits consumer choice in Germany."

"By imposing an injunction based on this very generic design right, this ruling restricts design innovation and progress in the industry," they said. In addition, the company has vowed to continue its own patent infringement suits against Apple across the world.

They don't get it. If they do like other tablet makers (regardless if they fail at it.) design their on look and feel, then the consumer would have a choice. This is not a generic design, R&D went into developing this form factor. No one is restricting design innovation they just want you to turn off the copiers and actually do your own R&D not piggy back off of some other company success.

If it was such a generic design, why did it take Samsung many many years, and several other design choices before they developed this? Was it just a coincidence that tablets started looking exactly like the iPad immediately after the iPad was shown to be successful?

Now, I am not entirely sure about the whole "Design Rights" idea, but can they at least try to pretend to not ape Apple?

Personally, I think Apple would be smarter to take a Microsoft approach by forcing a license out of companies like Samsung. Instead, I think it is trying to shut them down. The benefits of the license are 1) money on every device sold, which in turn makes Android less desirable, and 2) it would allow Apple to resolve outstanding patent issues in its favor.

Samsung and Apple can still make a deal. I don't think Apple would refuse a reasonable deal.

Personally, I think Apple would be smarter to take a Microsoft approach by forcing a license out of companies like Samsung. Instead, I think it is trying to shut them down. The benefits of the license are 1) money on every device sold, which in turn makes Android less desirable, and 2) it would allow Apple to resolve outstanding patent issues in its favor.

The whole point Apple is making is that by copying the design it muddies Apple's reputation with people falsely believing that it may be an Apple product when it isn't. Licensing the design is NOT going to resolve that issue, is it?

The funniest part was all the fandriods saying "well there's only so many ways you can make a tablet, it's just a piece of glass with a bezel"

But the problem with that argument is that if these designs are so obvious, why didn't Samsung do it before Apple?

Everything Apple does seems "obvious" and "generic" to Apple competitors, after Apple releases it and sells millions of units....but if it really was, they would have been the first to market and not the ones trying to play catch up.

It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.

Samsung do employ "creative" designers because their NX10/NX11 digital SLRs are very different in design to the many others from half a dozen manufacturers of identical purpose, specification and hand-size cameras on the market... why they didn't design a different form factor beats me considering Sony did it very differently with their two recent tablets, one a 2-screen and the other a folded magazine shape being "thicker along the spine." So it can be done Samsung.

Apple has every right to protect their intellectual property and anybody suggesting that Apple shouldn't be suing anybody or that Apple should just let things slide has got to be totally brain damaged and they should wake up and smell the coffee, because they are thinking and acting like a clueless fool.

I don't have anything in particular against Samsung, but blatant copying is blatant copying and anybody who engages in such pathetic and cowardly actions deserves to get smacked down.

If Apple lost it would have been foolish, but the fact that they won only helps the consumer in that it'll help spur wholly original innovation. Despite the fact that I think a 7" is a stupid size I admire Amazon for talking a stand and doing their own thing. That takes balls. Amazon aren't simply 'copying' Apple.

Amazon???

This is about Samsung

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBell

Personally, I think Apple would be smarter to take a Microsoft approach by forcing a license out of companies like Samsung. Instead, I think it is trying to shut them down. The benefits of the license are 1) money on every device sold, which in turn makes Android less desirable, and 2) it would allow Apple to resolve outstanding patent issues in its favor.

Not Apple's style. Licensing patents sure. In fact depending on the patent they could be sued if they didn't license it. But their trade dress, nope. To license it would basically be to endorse a form of cloning of their products and we've seen how well that worked for them in the past. They won't make that mistake again. Plus to cover the whole trade dress they would probably have to license iOS and they really aren't going to do that

Quote:

Originally Posted by jj.yuan

Samsung and Apple can still make a deal. I don't think Apple would refuse a reasonable deal.

The only deal that Apple will go for is that Samsung pulls all their stuff that suddenly had the same (according to Samsung) ''generic" design right after Apple released their latest thing, stops pulling the same stunt in the future and changes up the UI elements that look like Apple's UI and Apple will stop suing them over trade dress (i.e. dress right in the EU)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tawilson

The whole point Apple is making is that by copying the design it muddies Apple's reputation with people falsely believing that it may be an Apple product when it isn't. Licensing the design is NOT going to resolve that issue, is it?

It would in fact make it worse because it would come off that Apple endorses this 'clone' implying that it is even more similar to the iPad.

Samsung: A multibillion dollar company with no imagination. The few products I've seen with "Samsung" on it that are not a blatant copies of somebody else's successful product are all horribly over-designed deformities. Have you seen their appliances? You'd think for a company that big they can afford to hire a competent design chief AND not overrule his or her design decisions.

Samsung: A multibillion dollar company with no imagination. The few products I've seen with "Samsung" on it that are not a blatant copies of somebody else's successful product are all horribly over-designed deformities. Have you seen their appliances? You'd think for a company that big they can afford to hire a competent design chief AND not overrule his or her design decisions.

In Samsung's defense, I remember that they had some decent looking monitors a year or two ago, and later I noticed that some other monitor companies came out with their own monitors that closely resembled Samsung's design. I am not talking about the technical aspects or the performance of the monitor, solely the design.

For all I know, maybe Samsung ripped off that monitor design (I think it was the Touch of Color series) from somebody else also, but AFAIK, that is not the case.

Despite the fact that I think a 7" is a stupid size I admire Amazon for talking a stand and doing their own thing. That takes balls. Amazon aren't simply 'copying' Apple.

The ban will likely be extended to 7" devices too. Nothing to do with how the device works or what OS it uses. It could be a Windows8 device for that matter. If it's a rectangle with rounded corners it may be swept up in the same trap and banned in Germany.

This is not at all about icons, the OS, touchscreen or anything of that sort as the article plainly says. Apple wasn't suing about any of those. It's simply based on line drawings of a possible shape of a future device that Apple originally filed years before the iPad. This ruling could effectively ban any other rectangular, rounded corner slate or tablet offered by anyone else with any OS.

The ban will likely be extended to 7" devices too. Nothing to do with how the device works or what OS it uses. It could be a Windows8 device for that matter. If it's a rectangle with rounded corners it may be swept up in the same trap and banned in Germany.

It's worth noting that the judge did NOT compare this product to the ipad2 for this ruling, but ONLY the drawings in the filed community design.

The drawings in the filed community design show a rectangle

Buttons, bezel, and thickness are all NOT part of the community design. JUST that rectangle

So unless a company goes the route of sony (making odd looking tablets that limit use-cases) , or they make a tablet with something other than four sides, EVERY tablet developed will infringe.

Cleo McDowell: Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.

Personally, I think Apple would be smarter to take a Microsoft approach by forcing a license out of companies like Samsung. Instead, I think it is trying to shut them down. The benefits of the license are 1) money on every device sold, which in turn makes Android less desirable, and 2) it would allow Apple to resolve outstanding patent issues in its favor.

Apple doesn't want or need the licensing money... What they want is for other companies to design their own products... This is what will truly benefit consumers. This isn't barring Samsung from entering these markets, it's barring Samsung from entering the market without doing their own design work... Samsung is great at manufacturing, but they obviously lack any kind of design department. Apple doesn't want Samsung out of the market, they Samsung's devices to be Samsung's devices, not blatant clones.

It's funny that Samsung likes to claim this will stall innovation and lessen consumer choice, when in fact, it is going to force Samsung to redesign their products and actually give consumers something else/different to choose from. By not being to copy other's designs, it will spur innovation.

I'd also like to say... There are some people who say that Apple is only doing this because they don't like competition. Obviously they don't realize that Apple has been competing with the mother of all cmetitors for the last 20 years, Microsoft. A company that tried its damnedest during the 90's to buy up and squash all competition. Apple is not afraid to compete... Except against it's own products via blatant copying from other companies. Apple spends a lot of time and money researching, designing and testing their products, that's what all their patents clearly show.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.

It's funny that Samsung likes to claim this will stall innovation and lessen consumer choice, when in fact, it is going to force Samsung to redesign their products and actually give consumers something else/different to choose from. By not being to copy other's designs, it will spur innovation.

Actually you have a point. All Samsung would need to do is leave the corners close to square and the German judge wouldn't have any other problem with Samsung's Tab. All the other elements don't concern him.

Apple doesn't want or need the licensing money... What they want is for other companies to design their own products... This is what will truly benefit consumers. This isn't barring Samsung from entering these markets, it's barring Samsung from entering the market without doing their own design work... Samsung is great at manufacturing, but they obviously lack any kind of design department. Apple doesn't want Samsung out of the market, they Samsung's devices to be Samsung's devices, not blatant clones.

It's funny that Samsung likes to claim this will stall innovation and lessen consumer choice, when in fact, it is going to force Samsung to redesign their products and actually give consumers something else/different to choose from. By not being to copy other's designs, it will spur innovation.

Look at the community design.

Then tell me how Samsung can design a product that doesn't violate the community design in a way that adds something USEFUL to the product.

Companies being forced to find a new design to avoid getting banned isn't "forcing them to innovate"

Samsung, unsurprisingly, has vowed to appeal the court's decision, according to IDG News. A company spokesman said the decision "severely limits consumer choice in Germany."

Well, no. Samsung severely limited consumer choice when they failed to provide a differentiated product. If Samsung had created a product that was different than the iPad, consumers would have had a choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBell

Personally, I think Apple would be smarter to take a Microsoft approach by forcing a license out of companies like Samsung. Instead, I think it is trying to shut them down. The benefits of the license are 1) money on every device sold, which in turn makes Android less desirable, and 2) it would allow Apple to resolve outstanding patent issues in its favor.

That would be foolhardy. First, Apple would lose hardware revenue if people could buy the same thing elsewhere. Second, cheap imitations only tarnish the brand.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

All Samsung had to do is offset the actual working area of the glass... thin bezel on top with a thicker bezel on the bottom... and then put a row of buttons at the bottom... maybe a slight trapezoid shape... easy peezy... instead...

Personally, I'm leaning towards a limited amount of time that something like this can be upheld... say 3 to 5 years... but that's jmho.

I know many here is hating on this "minimalistic design" wording in the ruling, but I feel that it's the whole reason the iPhone/iPad have been so dominating. Look, every tablet that was marketed before the iPad was complex, some had swiveling screens to convert from laptop to tablet, they all used styluses, most had tons of buttons, some had handles, etc.

I think what's more interesting about the "prior art" from Kubrick and even star trek is these movies/shows were intending to make futuristic devices that seemed desirable but were straight forward. Somehow, in the months leading up to the release of the iPad, every competitor stood around, some even openly admitted they were purposefully delaying production because everyone wanted to see what apple would bring to the table.

When apple released it, many if not most people in the tech-sphere bemoaned that it was too simple, just an oversized iPod touch with comically sized bezels. People said it would fail because it was too simple, and some joked that it wasn't actually really bigger than an iPhone cuz it was all bezel.

Now, a couple years later, everyone is trying to say that this simple design is obvious and that everyone had obviously thought of it before. Well, that may be true, we can't read minds in the past, but apple was the only one with the balls to release such a simple device, I think it's fair to say they deserve to reap the benefits of their bold move.

Personally, I think Apple would be smarter to take a Microsoft approach by forcing a license out of companies like Samsung. Instead, I think it is trying to shut them down. The benefits of the license are 1) money on every device sold, which in turn makes Android less desirable, and 2) it would allow Apple to resolve outstanding patent issues in its favor.

How do you know that's not what their doing? If Samsung is refusing this is the next logical step. We have no idea what the private negotiations are about.

All Samsung had to do is offset the actual working area of the glass... thin bezel on top with a thicker bezel on the bottom... and then put a row of buttons at the bottom... maybe a slight trapezoid shape... easy peezy... instead...

Personally, I'm leaning towards a limited amount of time that something like this can be upheld... say 3 to 5 years... but that's jmho.

oddly enough Android is moving towards requiring no buttons on phones or tablets.